32" 16:9 monitor too big for Gaming?

Discussion in 'Displays' started by GotNoRice, Jul 4, 2019.

Is a 32" 16:9 monitor too big for Gaming?

  1. Yes- it is too large for gaming.

    2 vote(s)
    4.3%
  2. No- it should be fine

    39 vote(s)
    83.0%
  3. Other - I will explain below

    6 vote(s)
    12.8%
  1. GotNoRice

    GotNoRice [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,156
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2001
    What are your opinions when it comes to using a 32" 16:9 LCD for gaming? I've read a bit about the larger screen pushing more content into your peripheral vision and potentially having to move your head around more compared to something like a 27", resulting in less awareness, possible neck strain, etc. For those who have actually gone this route, how big of a deal is it in practice?

    Overall I've used various 27" LCDs for over 12 years now and would love to finally get myself a bigger screen but so many people claim that 27" is the "sweet spot" that it makes me sort of nervous. The peripheral vision / head movement reason is usually the explanation given.

    I'm not asking about resolution / ppi, because I'm coming from a 27" 1080p 120hz panel that I've used since ~2011 that I would like to finally retire. Even 1440p at 32" would still be an upgrade in terms of ppi compared to what I was using.
     
  2. Snowdog

    Snowdog [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,814
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    If you have room and it feels too big, you can move it a bit further back, but chances are you will get used to it quickly.

    I had 30" 16:10 (taller than 32" 16:9, but less width)monitor for while, and while it felt massive, I quickly thought it was awesome for games.
     
  3. Decko87

    Decko87 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,688
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    it's fine, just save your eyes and don't sit so close. I have a 32 inch monitor and i'll never go back.
     
  4. tisb0b

    tisb0b [H] Pirate

    Messages:
    3,025
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    In general people are idiots as some people's circumstances do not allow for bigger screens. If you have the space bigger is always better I went from 32" to 43" with zero regrets.
     
    harmone, criccio, Armenius and 2 others like this.
  5. r00k

    r00k 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,655
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    I love my 32" 1440p. Fit more on the screen while keeping a reasonable text size at native res. Gaming on it is much more immersive than the 22 or even 27 i had before it.
     
    Armenius and cosminmcm like this.
  6. GotNoRice

    GotNoRice [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,156
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2001
    Thanks everyone for the responses and votes. I just picked up a 32" Samsung CHG70 and no regrets so far.
     
  7. Susquehannock

    Susquehannock 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,283
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Distance is the key. I am using a 43" 16:10 plasma monitor for living room gaming. No regrets.
     
  8. bigbluefe

    bigbluefe Gawd

    Messages:
    613
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    It's my belief that 16:9 is a shitty aspect ratio for computing. Height is just as desirable as width. You pretty much need to go to 32" at 16:9 to get a monitor that's taller than Peter Dinklage.

    A 27" 16:9 monitor is the same height as a 22" 4:3 monitor. Doesn't seem so big anymore, does it?

    http://www.displaywars.com/27-inch-16x9-vs-22-inch-4x3
     
  9. sethk

    sethk [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,615
    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    I have 24, 27, 32 and 49 monitors in 2 different rigs.
    32” as a size is great for gaming. Better than 27” imho. The biggest issue with 32” so far is the res/refresh rate. 4k 32” is 60hz and the panels are not optimized for the fastest response time. WQHD 32” is good for gaming if there is a high refresh rate available but feels a little low dpi for desktop use.
    There are several new options coming out over the next few months including new high refresh 40”+ options but 27” is getting the most new panels due to popularity/ cost.
     
  10. Snowdog

    Snowdog [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,814
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    I think it the perfect DPI for a Windows Desktop (same as my 1920x1200 24"). I think Windows was designed for that DPI. Much higher DPI and you start needing Windows broken Scaling.
     
  11. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    17,453
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Not big enough! I used a 49" for racing games at a distance of about 3 feet and I felt it was just slightly too big. 43" would probably be perfect for desktop gaming.
     
  12. kasakka

    kasakka [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,058
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    The question is: with what resolution. I feel 1080p and 1440p is too little for 32" and you start to see the pixels. At 32" I'd go to 4K but there are no high refresh rate options available yet.
     
  13. GotNoRice

    GotNoRice [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,156
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2001
    I was not really that concerned about DPI. I've been using a 27" 1080P 120hz panel since 2011 or so. It's fairly low DPI never really bugged me. Even 1440P at 32" is a DPI upgrade over what I was using. Though I do have my limits and certainly would not have gone 1080P at 32".
     
  14. Haemato

    Haemato n00b

    Messages:
    2
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Using 55" LG C9 OLED. Sitting about 3 feet back. It's awesome. Can't wait for HDMI 2.1 cards to arrive so I can move to 4k@120Hz.
     
  15. sethk

    sethk [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,615
    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    In that case get a 120hz+ 32” and you should be good.
     
  16. harmone

    harmone n00b

    Messages:
    2
    Joined:
    May 3, 2016
    40 " here , when you get old , no going back.
     
  17. MacLeod

    MacLeod [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,524
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    I'm actually going through this right now. I had a BenQ XL2720Z for several years that I dearly loved. Easily in the hall of fame of gaming monitors but I kinda wanted to go to a 32" screen and 1440. I took a chance on a HP 32Q Pavilion. From what I could find out, it is the same panel and everything as the HP Omen 32 with the only differences being cosmetic and the Omen's refresh rate of 75 Hz. They both have Freesync and the 32Q can be overclocked to 70 Hz with no problem and best of all, could be had for $300 at Best Buy (plus I had a $50 gift card) so I sprung for it and gave my beloved BenQ to my kid who lives and breathes Fortnite. I love the monitor and it's excellent image quality (always liked the looks of VA panels) and while Freesync works like a charm with my RTX 2070, I wasn't really happy with the gaming performance.

    I sit with my monitor at arms length away and at this distance, for faster paced shooters I felt it was too close. Not only was I having to look around more as opposed to seeing things immediately in my peripheral but fast and crowded movement kinda got overwhelming for me and I was having a hard time keeping track of what was going on. I was actually about ready to trade in the panel and go back to a 27" high refresh rate "gaming monitor" but decided to spend a little time trying different distances because the PQ on this 32Q is really very good. I moved some things around on my desk and now my monitor sits arm's length plus about 9 inches away and so far that's working a little better but it's still not exactly right.

    27" at arm's length I think was perfect for me. It was close enough that it filled most all my field of vision but it wasn't so big that I couldn't keep track of what was going on around me. Moving the 32" back further has helped in tracking but now I see my speakers, my case, my 2nd monitor, the wall behind it....it's kinda cut down on the immersion factor for me.

    So yeah, I would say a 32" is fine for gaming BUT I am one of those that thinks a 27" is the sweet spot, at least for my eyes, in terms of screen real estate, immersion and the ability to quickly see and track everything that is going on.

    Then there is the whole argument about being able to use 1080 on the 27" screen for faster frame rates of which I have to admit I'm really missing gaming at 144 Hz.....but that's for another thread.
     
  18. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,347
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    4k is just a little too much- I have that beside a 1440p, both 32". Neither sits in the sweet spot of say 24" 1080p, but at least the 1440p 32" is readable ;).

    35" 4k is probably about right.
     
  19. Desert Fish

    Desert Fish n00b

    Messages:
    33
    Joined:
    May 30, 2016
    Umm... 24" 1080p is exactly the same pixel density as 32" 1440p. Also the same as 48" 4k.

    As far as I'm concerned, 4k without scaling is totally impractical, regardless of display size.
     
  20. Keljian

    Keljian Gawd

    Messages:
    578
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    It depends.

    If you are about 3 feet away, 32 inches is probably the best size.

    I run a LG 32uk550-B. It is a 4K VA panel that is pretty good. I sit about 3-5 feet away.
     
  21. Susquehannock

    Susquehannock 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,283
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Cannot answer without more info. Is your nose almost touching the screen or is it 10 feet away? Can tell you that a 65 inch monitor is not too big for gaming if you have the room for it.
     
  22. wagoo

    wagoo Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    422
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Too small. I've been using 49" 4K for 3-4 years
     
  23. Nasgul

    Nasgul [H]Lite

    Messages:
    124
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    I game on a 55" 4K TV which I sit about 4.5 feet away from and it's AWESOME!!!!